Spielberg and HD?

[Wendell_Greene]

The way I see Spielberg is like this: He was good in his day, but everyone has only so much they can give, and I think Spielberg's bag of goodies ran out 15 years or more ago.

 

 

 

Let's look at some of the films he's directed in the last 15 years.:

 

 

The Terminal (2004)

 

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

 

Minority Report (2002) - check out some of his compositions in this film.

 

Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001)

 

[/b]Saving Private Ryan (1998) -Best Picture, Best Director

 

Amistad (1997)

 

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

 

Schindler's List (1993) -Best Picture, Best Director, DGA Best Director, BAFTA, Best Picture, Director

 

If he had only directed "Schindler's List" and "SPR" that in itself would be considered an outstanding career. And then you add "ET", "Jaws" "Close Encounters" and the film where prejudice against him robbed him of a well deserved Best Director Oscar - "The Color Purple" and you can't help but give him props.

 

As David advised you should go back and check out "Sugarland Express" and one and I recommend you watch "Duel"

 

I never thought Spielberg understood enough about CG to make it useful.

 

Spielberg is no luddite. He understands the process and he was smart enough about it to hire Dennis Muren, ASC for Jurassic Park (1993) who took time off from ILM to learn how to use a computer due to the type of cgi Spielberg wanted for this film. JP won the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Muren would be nominated again for his work with Spielberg on AI. And of course, he won an Oscar back in the day for another "little" Spielberg film, ET.

 

He's not perfect and I don't love everything he does, but if you want to be a director you'd do well to study his technique. Doing so you'll discover other great directors before your time who influenced him. No matter the director, you can almost always find something they did to admire if not use. That's the point of DVDs and comnentaries, books and magazines like American Cinematographer, to add to our knowledge and help us improve our craft.

Edited June 11, 2005 by Wendell_Greene

[Stephen Williams]

It shouldn't be, but you always see it especially if you are combining two film elements because they weave against each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

David,

 

Is this transfered from a telecine? I always shoot a multipass steady test on the front of the first roll to show that the camera is steady. I shoot a great deal of multipass motion control. A number of times the TK house has said the material is not steady, now I can show when the TK is at fault!

 

Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman

 

www.stephenw.com

[Landon D. Parks]

You don't think much of Spielberg's War of the Worlds?

Er dude ... it hasn't actually been released yet!

I know enough about it to know that it's not a spielberg type film. . . I read the books, seen the older movie version, it just don't seem "Spielbergy".

 

Why should that matter Jim? He's probably seen one of the 400 pirated copies on the internet already.

Actually, I did. Well, not all of it by any means, but I KaZaA'd for "Steven Spielbergs War of the Worlds" and I got a full complete 3 minutes clip from it... And I dont think its a clip that was ok'ed by the marketing department...

 

So, Landon, is Spielberg "an OK director" or was "great" once (but "not anymore" according to your shrewd and complete analysis). 

Speilberg is OK... If you like the type of films he makes. More than anything, my type of films that are worth going to the theater for are film that transport me to another world. The problem with Spielbergs recent films like "Terminal" "Saving Provate Ryan" ect is that they don't transport me to another world. They show mw Life, and If I wanna see life, I'll go live it and not pay $7.00 for the experiance.

 

The type of films I go to the theater to see are films of worlds that I will never be able to see in real life, or situations that are so magical there beyond the real world. Like for instance, I'll never be able to see a real Hogwarts Castle, but if I wanna see a terminal I'll go to my local Airport.

 

As I said, some Spielberg films, such as ET, ect transport me into a world of make-believe, a world that is only real in the movies....

 

Reguardless of how good the film is, or it's Director for that matter, the film itself has to transport me into another world for it to be great.

 

Sure, I go to the theater to see horror films and Comedies all the time, and they are OK. But again not great because If I wanna laugh, I can go to www.funnys.com and read some jokes, and not pay the $7.00 to do it.

 

I guess It's just a prefernce of mine that the type of films I like are the Fantasy films... Something that makes my $7.00 worth it, and not just some cheap way for Hollywood to make an extra buck.

 

To end this, Im not saying that Spielberg is a BAD director, I'm just saying that I don't like the kind of films he makes for the most part. They are just not my style...

[Saul Pincus]

Speilberg is OK... If you like the type of films he makes. More than anything, my type of films that are worth going to the theater for are film that transport me to another world. The problem with Spielbergs recent films like "Terminal" "Saving Provate Ryan" ect is that they don't transport me to another world. They show mw Life, and If I wanna see life, I'll go live it and not pay $7.00 for the experiance.

 

The type of films I go to the theater to see are films of worlds that I will never be able to see in real life, or situations that are so magical there beyond the real world. Like for instance, I'll never be able to see a real Hogwarts Castle, but if I wanna see a terminal I'll go to my local Airport.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd agree with you on this. But the bulk of his output as director and producer, particularly in the 70s and 80s, was just the opposite - he rarely made anything that wasn't extraordinary, that didn't transport you...

 

To end this, Im not saying that Spielberg is a BAD director, I'm just saying that I don't like the kind of films he makes for the most part. They are just not my style...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but you still seem to be basing your opinion mostly on his current output. Trust us, Landon, the Spielberg brand virtually redefined escapist entertainment - nearly flawlessly - for almost two decades before he began an emphasis on stories that didn't. This man has has an incredibly varied career, and he's a geek at heart. He (along with Lucas) made it OK to relish these kinds of films again, and gave filmmakers (but then writers) like Robert Zemeckis and Chris Columbus their chance.

 

And incidentally, does anyone recall how Robert Zemeckis agreed to exec produce Peter Jackson's "The Frighteners," effectively giving Jackson his first chip at studio clout?

 

This is becoming a rant, I know, but for god's sake give these people their due!

 

Saul

Edited June 11, 2005 by Saul Pincus

[Tenolian Bell]

You think Saving Private Ryan was an example of your life????

 

Come on Landon.

 

I strongly suggest you live a little more life. Read, study, travel, make friends, fall in love, have your heart broken.

 

You will have quite a different out look on things than you do now.

Edited June 11, 2005 by tenobell

[Landon D. Parks]

Actually, Thats not what I was saying... I was not saying that "Saving Privat Ryan" was a part of my life, I was saying that it's based on real life! It is real life, even if those exactl events never happend. It is still based on something that probly did occure durring a priod of war. And if I want to read about war, I'll go to the library and read some books on the subject.

 

It all comes down to taste, if you like "Real Life" films, fine! It's your life and you have a right to an opinion, but I have my opinion too...

 

PS) Dont even pull the whole:

I strongly suggest you live a little more life. Read, study, travel, make friends, fall in love, have your heart broken.

thing! How do you know what I need to do? How do you know that I have not already read all the books in the world, studied all there is to be studied, traveled everywhere there is to go?

 

For your information Mr. Bell I have already fell in love, had my hear broken, traveled, studied, and read more than I need too... I did graduate from High school you know, so I at least have a high school education! I have fell inlove many time, had my hear broken many more... I have read more books (both modern and classic) than a lot of peple my age, ect...

 

Sorry if I sound mad here, but I am. I'm sick people who do not know me at all trying to tell me how to run my life, and what I do / dont need to do with it. I understand that some of you are simply offering advice, and I thank you very much for that advice, but a select few are here not only to offer advice, but to act like there better than anyone smaller than them! For the purpose of not attaking anyone, which is in the forum rules, I won't list there names...

 

This is the end of this tread for me! I have statedmy opinion, and if you dont understand what my opinion is, I'm sorry.

Edited June 11, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Guest Roman]

if I wanna see a terminal I'll go to my local Airport.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

? and if you want to see a WWII go to Stalingrad in 1942 or Normandy in 1944. Moreover, if you want to see some dinosaurs go back to the Mezosoic Era and if you want to see aliens go to the galaxy far, far away? it would be easier / cheaper then to go to see the movie...

 

It is the story, my dear, it is the story. Hitchcock's "Lifeboat" was made on the, well, life boat, Spielberg's "The Terminal" was made you know where, Kubrick's "2001" was made there etc., etc., etc.... it is the story and the craft (of a whole bunch of talented filmmakers joined together) that is telling us the story.

 

I can respect that someone would prefer to go to the local airport or to go fishing on his boat instead of watching the movies made in similar set-up but then I would not be someone who admires and respects the art of filmmaking; I would not be someone who is ready and who would like to learn from someone else...

[Tenolian Bell]

It all comes down to taste, if you like "Real Life" films, fine! It's your life and you have a right to an opinion, but I have my opinion too...

 

You are right a lot of it comes down to taste and preference. But also to a great degree experience and wisdom can give you a certain connection to the material. If one has little or no personal experience or educational understanding of certain themes then it may be more difficult for one to indentify with that theme.

 

 

Sorry if I sound mad here, but I am. I'm sick people who do not know me at all trying to tell me how to run my life, and what I do / dont need to do with it.  I understand that some of you are simply offering advice, and I thank you very much for that advice, but a select few are here not only to offer advice, but to act like there better than anyone smaller than them! For the purpose of not attaking anyone, which is in the forum rules, I won't list there names...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is not my intention to be condescending or tell you what you should do with your life. At the same time don't discount years of life experience because.......

 

The problem with Spielbergs recent films like "Terminal" "Saving Provate Ryan" ect is that they don't transport me to another world. They show my Life, and If I wanna see life, I'll go live it and not pay $7.00 for the experiance.

 

The type of films I go to the theater to see are films of worlds that I will never be able to see in real life, or situations that are so magical there beyond the real world. Like for instance, I'll never be able to see a real Hogwarts Castle, but if I wanna see a terminal I'll go to my local Airport.

 

......this statement clearly sounds like its from someone who is young.

 

 

I know you probably are tired of people telling you this stuff. Such as, at 35 I wish I could go back to when I was 20 with all of the knowledge I have now.

 

But hell its true.

[Brian Wells]

This thread shows how little I truly know about Spielberg. Thanks for your help!

[Tenolian Bell]

An example of collected experience and knowledge.

 

When I was a kid in the late 70's to mid 80's. At that time for me war was still a pretty romanticized notion. My Dad would watch a lot of the war films from the 40's and 50's where all of the men fought and died heroically. So that in my imagination is what war was.

 

At the time I also had a huge G.I. Joe collection. I mean I had G.I. Joe headquarters, a Cobra headquarters, planes, tanks, ships, everything. In my G.I. Joe fantasy no one ever really gets badly hurt, no one ever dies. At most someone would get blown up in their jeep and have to go to the emergency room to recover.

 

As I got older and read more books about real war, in high school history classes we delved more deeply into America?s history of war. The notion begins to strike you that people really do die in war. You always did know that, but it's still not very real. As I got old enough to see more recent war films: Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Hamburger Hill. The picture really becomes clear that war is no good at all. Not only do people die, but they die in gruesomely horrible ways.

 

From my last year in high school to my first year in college was around the time of the first gulf war. My older brother was in the army at that time, and was a tank commander in Iraq.

 

After he came back and I got to speak to him. He was telling me how horrible to whole experience was. He said initially they were just firing their canon from miles away and bombing the Iraqi?s. Once they move in for the ground assault, he described to me the dead body's and body parts he saw strewn everywhere. He said he couldn't eat for a couple of weeks and had to be hospitalized for malnutrition .

 

A few years later once Saving Private Ryan comes to the theaters, in a very gradual sense I've collected all of this knowledge of what is the reality of war. SPR puts all of that on screen in a very graphic way, and only gives me a slight glimpse into what being in all of that confusion, mayhem and death must be like. Through Speilberg's masterfull directions what it does is make me appreciate much more the people who have been through that, as well as the fact that I have never had to endure, and the hope that I never will.

Edited June 11, 2005 by tenobell

[timHealy]

From someone who worked on War of the Worlds on the New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Virginia locations, I have a greater respect for Speilberg than I had before. Like David I had been completely inspire by Close Encounters and have seen all his earlier films like Duel and Sugarland Express.

 

I have to say the guy knows what he wants and shoots extremely fast. WOW was like a freight train running at top speed and there was no stopping it. He surrounds himself with top people and he gets to do what he wants. I can't wait to see the film because it will be great summer fare, I have no doubt. But even though he still shoots film, a tremendous amount of effects were added digitally, whether they were accents or major effects. From the trailer, I can see where they added explosions or fire where there had been none, and completely removed the Bayonne Bridge from a shot and replaced it with one collapsing and destroyed by Martians. I especially like the tractor trailer smashing into the house in that one. For those interested I understand the writers went back to the book for a more original interpretation. But needless to say the script was not easily available. I did not read it or get a hold of one. But I am going to see it the day it comes out.

 

Someone mentioned Kaminski likes to shoot Super 35 with an anamorphic aspect ratio and sherical lenses. I am working on Scorcese's The Departed and Michael Balhaus is utilzing the same format. I guess great minds think alike.

[AmatEscalante]

Landon D. Parks,

Actually there is no way you have read more than you need to because you don?t even know how to write properly yet.

Less surfing the net, less blabbing, less pretending and more hands on action is what I suggest if you want to become a real filmmaker. Only my opinion.

good luck

[Max Jacoby]

Not to enter too deeply into this disccusion I wonder whose point of view we see when looking at Vincent van Gogh,  Frida Kahlo or Pablo Picasso?s paintings? Whose point of view represents William Shakespeare, Lav Tolstoy or Thomas Pynchon?s writing. Whose point of view we may see in Stanley Kubrick or Akira Kurosawa films?

 

There is a difference between having an artistic point of view and manipulating people to get your message accross. Spielberg is not an artist in the vein of all the people you mentioned above.

[Saul Pincus]

There is a difference between having an artistic point of view and manipulating people to get your message accross. Spielberg is not an artist in the vein of all the people you mentioned above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, to make your point effectively you need to define precisely what constitutes an artistic point of view in relation to movies. Where would you draw that line? If not, it's hard to take names alone as proof of your point. IMHO, Shakespeare left behind works that are brilliant in execution, but - heresy! - rarely art. His voluminous catalogue is mostly wonderfully crafted, and even his lesser works are often enjoyable purely based on the fact that it's *his*, but how can you empirically state Spielberg isn't his equal? I'm not saying he is, but Stanley Kubrick - never one to throw around compliments about other filmmakers - openly admired Spielberg's abilities, even to the point of collaborating with him on the early stages of "A.I." And Kubrick wasn't just a cinematic god, he was a master chess player, a brilliant man who truly appreciated and collected paintings and objects many consider to be "great art."

 

If you don't approve of everything Spielberg does, then join the club - I don't either. But he has reached the level of craft in his work that few, if any, ever have. And yeah, even like Shakespeare, at times, it's art.

 

Saul

[David Mullen ASC]

I've never been comfortable with drawing some line and then telling people that THIS is art but THAT isn't art. "Im really sorry to tell you this, but that artist you like... isn't an artist. I have this list of rules that define an artist and he doesn't quality."

[Adam Frisch FSF]

A bit off-topic, but....

 

You know who'd be the perfect DP for a new Indy? Phil Meheux, BSC. His hard source, old-school-yet-modern-style would be a perfect substitute for Douglas Slocombe's work. Zorro practically WAS an Indy-film in look....

[Guest fstop]

What's the point of an INDY IV? Spielberg has moved on from all of his 80s innocence and become something decidedly more middle aged and conservative. Cinematographically speaking (and I may have said this before) Douglas Slocombe is the ONLY DP could shoot Indy, because he was a documentary cameraman back in the 1930s assigned to filming the Nazis at their birth in Berlin (he even filmed Hitler!), and whether it comes across or not, Spielberg's pastelised romanticism of a (largely ficitionalised) bygone era was given some heavily layered form having the cameraman who was around shooting during the era INDY supposedly lived! Gives a deeper subtextual meaning to sequences like this with that knowledge, eh?:

 

Slocombe (and even designer Elliott Scott) really LIVED through those times and their influence on the productions weren't going to let their director degenerate into dabbling in period nonsense in a light, trivialised, irreverent way as Spielberg had done so shamefully on 1941. Even Temple of Doom, which is a TERRIBLE movie and a return to the amateurish attempts at farce of 1941, did benefit from being lit and designed unlike anything you could find in the genre since the 40s.

 

Even worse is that Spielberg would be making it post SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, when he believes he is some kind of neo-John Ford conservative patriot, deluded by his own status post Schindlers List. Having that kind of filmmaker churning out an Indy sequel with a 60+ year old Harrison Ford in these days when Stephen Sommers MUMMY "movies" and Tomb Raider have taken both the fun and the magic from the genre...

 

And come on, as if ANYONE could fill the shoes of a DP who NEVER used a lightmeter!! Slocombe simply can't have a substitute- he IS the look of Indy.

 

If anyone HAD to shoot Indy (and I mean if they hadn't had that final, completist sunset from LAST CRUSADE to end on), David Tattersall would be right at the front of my list seeing as the guy was shooting INDY every week 10 years ago for the YOUNG INDY CHRONICLES tv show! You have to marvel at how he did a identical small screen Slocombe on a shoestring!

 

PS Slocombe's work wasn't all about hardlight- just look at all of the soft, available location exterior lighting, such as Indy's flee from the boulder chase in Raiders- most of that looks more comparable to The Killing Fields than it does to The Treasure of Sierra Madre!!! However, once again, I don't think anyone can match his use of saturated, primary colour gelled direct hard light for interiors. Truly walking the fine line between intrusively artificial and cinema magic.

[Nate Downes]

Wait a sec, people use lightmeters?!?!?!?

[Dominik Muench]

Wait a sec, people use lightmeters?!?!?!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

yeah i just bought one cause i wanted to go with the flow ;)

 

 

 

do you guys really think that conservative filmmaker spielberg will use hd ? i mean the man stays in his comfort zone as much as possible all the time, same dp, use of same actors over and over again, goes with the same editing style and look and so on ??

just a question.

Edited June 13, 2005 by Dmuench

[Boone Hudgins]

same dp,

Hasn't Spielberg only settled on one DP in the past ten years or so? He used to go through quite a few of them.

[Dominik Muench]

Hasn't Spielberg only settled on one DP in the past ten years or so?  He used to go through quite a few of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

yes for his last few movies, which i thought all looked very similar.

in his earlier years he worked with alan davieau and michael chapman as far as i know.

[David Mullen ASC]

Besides Janusz Kaminski, this covers most of them:

 

Vilmos Zsigmond (Sugarland Express, Close Encounters)

Bill Fraker (1941, opening desert scene in Close Encounters)

Bill Butler (Jaws)

John Alonzo, Lazlo Kovacs, Steven Poster (2nd unit, Close Encounters)

Douglas Slocombe (India sequence in Close Encounters, Indiana Jones trilogy)

Allen Daviau (E.T., Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Kick the Can episiode of Twilight Zone: The Movie, 2nd Unit on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, new shots for Close Encounters Special Edition)

Dean Cundey (Hook, Jurassic Park)

 

Michael Chapman was the operator on "Jaws".

 

Certainly Douglas Slocombe could do soft lighting and naturalistic day exterior work but he was most distinctive for his use of hard lighting, high contrast, and deep focus, not just on the Indiana Jones films. Look at "Lady Jane" where you have some candlelight scenes that look like they were lit to f/11, the depth of field is so high. And the candles hardly put out any real light.

 

And most people shooting the jungle scenes in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" would have exposed more for the shade and let the background foilage blow-out, but he exposed more for the backgrounds and let the foreground go silhouette, then brought out detail in select areas with hard arc lighting, broken up with leafy patterns. Looked great, but definitely a throwback to an earlier style of lighting day exterior scenes, almost like for a b&w movie.

 

I liked the weird mix of harsh sunlight and hard-lit interiors in that film, giving the film a realistic grittiness one moment yet a film noir ambience the next (and film noir was always a genre with a certain element of realistic grit mixed with German Expressionism.) Clearly this was right up Slocombe's alley; just look at a movie like "The Servant" for example: stylized, theatrical, yet somehow also realistic in a harsh way.

 

The later Indiana Jones films veered farther away into some sort of stagey look, more like those 1940's adventure films that WOULDN'T leave the backlot and just used matte paintings (I'm exaggerating -- obviously there was a lot of location work in the second and third films) but I think the first one got the balance right all around.

 

I'm just afraid that Lucas would want to create the period setting entirely on greenscreen stages with CGI backgrounds, and do all the stunts in a similar manner, with digital stunt people, etc. until the whole thing looked more like "Indiana Jones: The Playstation Game".

[Dominik Muench]

I'm just afraid that Lucas would want to create the period setting entirely on greenscreen stages with CGI backgrounds, and do all the stunts in a similar manner, with digital stunt people, etc. until the whole thing looked more like "Indiana Jones: The Playstation Game".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

thanks, i will probably not sleep tonight after imagening that :(

 

indy was my childhood hero, and i ve been waiting for the new movie for so long. ;)

[Max Jacoby]

Even worse is that Spielberg would be making it post SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, when he believes he is some kind of neo-John Ford conservative patriot, deluded by his own status post Schindlers List.

 

These are my feelings about Spielberg's attempts at 'serious' movies exactely. 'Saving Private Ryan' is the only movie I ever walked out of. I found the whole ideological message it carried so primitive and disgusting. To me this is propaganda at it's worst, because as an audience you have to surrender yourself to his ideology if you want to enjoy the movie. I like to keep my brain switched on and actually be allowed to think if a movie claims to be 'serious'.

 

That this movie is not what it pretends to be is already obviouos in the very first scene. The old soldier walking along the beachfront is followed by 3 blonde All-American girls, with their huger knockers nearly bursting out of their tight t-shirts. And lets not even get into the salute at the end...

 

As for Stanley Kubrick enjoying Spielberg's movies, well he also said about 'Schindler's List' that the holocaust is about 6 Million people dying, not 6000 gettign saved. And if anyone could tell me the name of the critic who called 'Schindler's List' 'emotional pornography' because that is exactly what it is.

[Guest fstop]

David,

 

From what I recall however (from the print I saw projected), the shots of the tribes people after Indy escapes the boulder from RAIDERS was definitely exposed for the faces of the natives with blown out scenery behind.

 

To strengthen your argument however, I'd have to agree that alot of Slocombe's lensing has been towards the higher fstops/harder side, and not all of it has been great. Rollerball is lit very unimaginatively with depth in mind, and I recently saw NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN which looked awful with a fresh eye, ironically as ugly, boring, artifical and hard as Ted Moore's work on Thunderball (which it is a remake of). I was very disappointed (the use of nets were blatant, obvious and amateurish to say the least too). Still, it seemed that project was doomed from the start. The Cliff Richard vehicle The Young Ones from the early 60s is another hard and deep focused one, although understable given the picture is built around traditional musical numbers!

 

I saw some documentaries Slocombe had shot in the late 30s, one particularly that was passengers riding on a bus- it was similarly hard light, exposed for the background out the window!!

 

btw- I really enjoyed the photography of LAST CRUSADE, it was like Korda era Cardiff/Perinal by way of Dean Cundey in it's use of colour. :) I think the pallette is tighter with more distinct colour motifs in LC over Raiders (blown out /blue for the grail guard at the end, white for the Nazi portraits, CTO for the fire/danger motif, CTB coming full for the reflected day/night sky). I think Elliot Scott deserves as much praise here too in his designs which were probably more controlled being more stylised than Norman Reynolod's RAIDERS work.